Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/ulstertenantrighOOhend 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
ULSTER 
 
 TENANT-RIGHT: 
 
 Historic and Economic Sketch. 
 
 W. D. HENDERSON, 
 
 ( BELFAST. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 A Letter to the Times , 
 
 DY 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD WAYENEY, 
 
 BELFAST : 
 
 WILLIAM M U L L A N . 
 
 1875. 
 
HS 
 
 6MS 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 O'NEILL 
 
 BOSTON COLLET* 
 
 m 1 9 1892 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following lecture was delivered at Tralee, to the Farmers’ 
 Association there. My main object in it was to illustrate the 
 present position of Ulster Tenant-right by its past history. I also 
 endeavoured to show how the Tenant-right custom had been bene- 
 ficial alike to landlord and tenant ; how it had encouraged the 
 proper cultivation of the soil ; had promoted habits of saving 
 among the people, whilst it enabled the size of the farms to be 
 varied according to the agricultural wants of the country. 
 
 No elaborate defence of the custom was attempted, not 
 merely because the limits of time did not admit of such defence, 
 but because the old objections to it have nearly all been given up. 
 I assumed, therefore, that the fact of Ulster Tenant-right having 
 existed so long, and given such general contentment, was a suffi- 
 cient proof of its value, and that to a Southern audience the chief 
 question of interest would be, what it really was. This question it 
 seemed impossible to answer fully, without showing how it com- 
 menced and existed for two centuries as the right to a renewal of 
 a lease at a fair rent, and how this equity still exists, in its essence, 
 when Ulster holdings have become tenancies at will. Even in 
 Ulster this origin of Tenant-right is too often forgotten, and the 
 tenant’s cause is defended upon insufficient grounds. 
 
 A very valuable letter, by Lord Waveney, is reprinted, by 
 permission. From a slightly different stand-point, it confirms sub- 
 stantially the conclusions of the lecture. If some of the other 
 great landowners of Ulster would give a similar sketch of the 
 history of their properties, it would be of very great value, as in 
 Ulster there exists, in a more perfect form than elsewhere, a 
 “ survival” of those ancient rights and customs which stdl so 
 largely influence all landed properties in the United Kingdom. 
 

 
ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT. 
 
 S8 HEEE is one preliminary remark which it is necessary I 
 should make. I appear here in no sense in a representa- 
 tive capacity. I have, indeed, taken my part in all the meetings 
 and conferences connected with the Tenant-right movement in 
 Ulster since the Spring of 1870, when the Associations resumed 
 their labours ; and I am quite sure that the views which I shall 
 put before you are those generally shared in by the Associations, 
 but, at the same time, it is quite possible that, on some points, 
 men more clear-headed and better informed than I am would 
 differ from me ; or perhaps it would be more correct to say that 
 they would urge some portions of the questions more strongly 
 than I do, and leave others a little in the shade which I bring 
 forward. I flatter myself, however, that these differences would 
 be slight, and that between myself and my better informed 
 friends there would be a substantial agreement. But if I 
 represent only myself in the matter, there is at least one advan- 
 tage — I can speak out my mind with perfect freedom and 
 distinctness, and perhaps you will learn as much of the tone and 
 feeling of the North, and of the mode in which we look upon this 
 question, from a free and off-hand statement than from the more 
 cautious, but possibly more accurate, utterances of one who spoke 
 with some greater authority. What I may say, coming from 
 a country where every man is born, to use the Marquis of 
 Hamilton’s words, with Tenant-right hung round his neck, may 
 perhaps, be none the less effective because it is simple and familiar, 
 and is not guarded with so much care at all points as, like a knight 
 in armour, to be almost incapable of motion, or effecting an en- 
 trance into your minds. I may say, further, that I have not 
 
G 
 
 allowed myself, in what I am going to state to you, to be influ- 
 enced by any desire to please you. When in any difficulty upon 
 this question of the Ulster Custom, I have always thought that 
 what was right must also be expedient ; and that in explaining 
 or defending a great -system of land tenure, produced by the 
 wisdom of no one person or of any set of persons, but as I might 
 call it the spontaneous growth of generations, any little petty 
 measures of prudence would be entirely out of place, and would 
 be, in fact, putting my limited judgment and capacity against 
 the experience of all the world. 
 
 It is a very curious fact that the researches of modern scholar- 
 ship have thrown an entirely new light upon the question of the 
 origin of land customs and tenures. By a careful study and com- 
 parison of the various customs of the chief European nations, 
 and of our kinsmen so far away as India, it has become possible 
 to find a common origin for very much of what had previously 
 been considered doubtful, and ascribed, sometimes to the gods, and 
 sometimes to some great king or reformer. Of land tenures this 
 is especially true, and the ancient Brehon laws of Ireland, and the 
 customs of the village communities of India, have a common origin 
 and development in the feeling of all ancient peoples that the 
 land belonged, not to an individual, but to the tribe or clan. I am 
 not going into an antiquarian discussion of this question ; but 
 tribal rights were the starting point of the rights of property in 
 land, and to this day the feelings which it represents largely influ- 
 ence all dealings in property. 
 
 Let me illustrate this by a reference, purely upon historic 
 grounds, to the description of the ownership of land among the 
 Hebrews, given in the Bible. In the account of Abraham and Lot 
 you have a description of a very early stage, but one out of which 
 large portions of the East have never advanced, in which a wise and 
 able man gathered around him a body of retainers, became the sheik 
 or chief of a tribe, and moved with his flocks and herds from place 
 to place, making bargains according to his strength and necessities 
 with neighbouring sheiks as to what the limits of his and their 
 territories were to be. A few centuries later we find the Israelites 
 coming back to their native land, as a great people, skilled in war 
 and skilled in agriculture. The land was then divided out among 
 them, but it was divided out not to individuals, but to families. 
 
“ This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah accord- 
 ing to their families/’ (Joshua xv. 20,) and these families, we make 
 bold to say, were really what among a Celtic people would be called 
 clans. As the members of these families increased in number, there 
 was a very curious provision as to dealings in land. By this, a man 
 could not sell his land at all. He could only mortgage it for a 
 time, and in fact till the next year of Jubilee — every fiftieth year. 
 I think the language of the laws of that ancient people has a fine 
 ring about it — “ Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim 
 liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” 
 “ It shall be a Jubilee unto you ; and ye shall return every man 
 unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.” 
 (Leviticus xxv. 10.) In these words we may read a very 
 vivid description of the feeling of the Irishman unto this day. 
 There follows this, provisions as to houses in cities, and houses in 
 villages; and if I were addressing a Northern Tenant-right Asso- 
 ciation, I would point out to them that village Tenant-right was 
 recognised as early as the settlement of Palestine, 3,000 years ago, 
 whilst the question of town parks was also the subject of special 
 legislation. 
 
 Now I might have taken other illustrations, but this is a 
 very ready one. I might have told you how the Lammas fields, 
 as they are called, of England, existed (under a different name no 
 doubt) 4,000 years ago in Egypt ; and if you read to an English 
 villager the Egyptian curse against the man who moved his 
 neighbour’s land-mark, he will most heartily say, Amen. Or 
 I might have taken the Brehon Laws of Ireland* as my text ; 
 but what I want you to clearly understand is this — that originally, 
 
 * “ By the Brehon laws every member of a free clan was as truly a proprietor 
 of the tribe -land as the chief himself. He could sell his share, or the interest 
 in it, to any other member of the tribe — the origin, perhaps, of what is now 
 called tenant-right ; he could not, however, sell to a stranger without the con- 
 sent of the tribe and the chief. The stranger coming in under such an 
 arrangement, held by a special tenure, yet if he remained during the time of 
 three lords he became thereby naturalized. If the unnaturalized tenant 
 withdrew of his own will from the land he was obliged to leave all his 
 improvements behind ; but if he was ejected he was entitled to get their full 
 value. Those who were immediate tenants of the chief, or of the church, were 
 debarred this privilege of tenant-right, and if unable to keep their holdings 
 were obliged to surrender them unreservedly to the church or the chief. All 
 the tribesmen, according to the extent of their possessions, were bound to 
 maintain the chiefs household, and to sustain him, with men and means, in 
 his offensive and defensive wars.” 
 
8 
 
 and down to a very recent date indeed, such a thing as the absolute 
 ownership of land unless by the occupiers, did not exist, and I would 
 be almost justified in saying does not exist in practice, whatever it 
 may do in law, at the present moment. For, irrespective of 
 any laws, there is a sense of right in the heart of man, and a dread 
 of infringing old customs and traditions founded on right ; and so 
 we can well understand how the late Lord Derby said that there 
 was one thing a landlord could not do in Ireland, and that was 
 straighten the boundary ditch or fencing between two adjoining 
 farms, or how an accurate and acute observer of human character 
 makes an old English country gentleman say of the dealings of 
 a neighbour, who was ignorant of the ways of the country — “ All ! 
 he was wrong, there. When a man has held land so long it should 
 not be taken away from him, except under pressing circumstances, 
 that is if he pays the rent.”* And yet this was said of land let on 
 the express understanding that it was to be given up when the 
 heir came of age. 
 
 There is, I venture to think, something very fascinating in 
 these questions of the origin of our property rights and our customs ; 
 but I must hasten on, only dwelling on them so far as they may 
 illustrate the nature and origin of Ulster Tenant-right, on the 
 question still more interesting to the South, how this Tenant-right, if 
 it is good for us, may be extended to you. With this latter object 
 in view, I may explain for a moment how the idea of absolute 
 ownership in land — or, at least, of the late Duke of Newcastle’s 
 ideas of ownership, that a man may do what he likes with his 
 own — arose. It is, I think, obvious, that the increasing density 
 
 of population would, from time to time, make encroachments 
 upon the family or clan system, would occasion a more minute 
 subdivision of land than could have existed where it was largely 
 owned in common, and would probably ultimately result in the 
 creation of a nation of peasant proprietors. This idea of owner- 
 ship would be strengthened by the growth of towns, in which a 
 man will not build unless he is absolutely assured of his title. It 
 might, I repeat, be expected that, left undisturbed, society 
 would gradually have developed into a system of peasant proprie- 
 tors, paying some small dues to the head of the tribe for what 
 
 * Orley Farm. Chapter v. 
 
9 
 
 might be called local administration, and paying him also dues to 
 be forwarded to the head of the nation for maintaining peace and 
 preventing the incursions of rival nations. But another development 
 might take place, and very often did take place. Men are unfor- 
 tunately prone to quarrel, and so are nations; and for very many 
 centuries there was a constant migration from the East to 
 the West, generally, I am afraid to say, of a not very peaceful 
 character. Nation has fought against nation, and the conqueror 
 has come in to enjoy the fruits of victory. In such cases the 
 land of the country would necessarily bear a large portion of 
 the burden — indeed, in former times, the entire burden — and we 
 might expect to see in such a case the conquerors dividing out the 
 land among them, stepping into the places of the heads of the 
 family or clan, and exacting for themselves a larger portion of the 
 spoils than had previously been rendered. But in time the con- 
 queror and the conquered would become one people, and the old 
 system would go on without very much alteration. Probably, 
 also, the effect of conquest would often be to consolidate tribes and 
 clans, and one man would become at once the representative of the 
 conquerors, and the local chief of half-a-dozen small communities. 
 Even in England, where the marks of the Norman Conquest have 
 never been completely effaced, and where the ownership of the land 
 is by the great landlords, in theory, very absolute, the old tradi- 
 tions and customs proved too many for the mere brute rights of 
 conquest. It is to the eternal honor of the Catholic Church 
 that for some centuries she bent all her energies to the creation of 
 that copyhold and other customary tenures of England, which, in 
 many of their incidences, so closely resemble the Tenant-right of 
 Ulster. It is in comparatively modern times that we have seen 
 grow up what I may call the mercantile idea of landed property. 
 Perhaps its first powerful manifestation was its ability, in the 
 reign of William the Third, to throw off the burden of supporting 
 the army and navy from the necks of the rich landowners to the 
 people ; but this disassociation of the ownership of property from 
 correlative duties and rights has, at all events on large properties, 
 never made very much progress. 
 
 I come now to the more immediate subject of my lecture, but 
 I hope that these preliminary remarks will bring clearly before 
 you how, in former times, the ownership of land was regarded 
 B 
 
10 
 
 as a trust, or an office, rather than a mere property to be used 
 for making money; and this will assist you in understanding 
 how the history of land tenures in Ulster may have been 
 different from what it has been in the rest of Ireland or England or 
 Scotland. One can easily see, for example, how the power of the 
 landlords would be a steadily growing one; and if it is borne in mind 
 that for a very long time indeed the legislation of the country was in 
 the hands of the landlords, we must look for the preservation of such 
 rights as the Ulster tenants retain chiefly to the fear of the 
 landlords, who knew that their hold upon the estates might, in 
 cases of invasion, or insurrection, depend upon the action of their 
 tenantry. The landlord was not merely a landlord, but a colonel 
 of volunteers, and that great outburst of patriotism in the North of 
 Ireland, the Irish Volunteers, with Lord Charlemont at their head, 
 nearly a hundred years ago, was not an isolated occurrence, but 
 was the consequence of an organization which, it can be shown, ex- 
 isted in 1715, in 1745, and in 1760. It is a remarkable confirmation 
 of these views that, in the eighteenth century there were two great 
 occasions on which the tenantry of Ulster asserted their rights, and 
 on each of these occasions the landlords believed that their power had 
 been greatly increased. The first, a few years after the accession of the 
 House of Hanover, and the defeat of the first Pretender; the second, 
 a few years after the accession of George the Third, when a great 
 Tory reaction took place, and the upper classes of Ulster, who had 
 previously been largely Whigs and Presbyterians, became Tories 
 and Episcopalians. I mention these matters, not with any party 
 or religious bias, for the politics and polemics of that day are a 
 thing of the past ; but simply to show you that the land tenures 
 of Ulster were maintained by causes which were exceptional as 
 compared with the rest of these kingdoms. We thus retain in 
 Ulster rights which were once common to all, but in the rest of 
 the Three Kingdoms now only exist as matters of favor and con- 
 cession. It is right, however, that I should add that the Ulster 
 Tenant-right had an economic as well as a political basis, or an 
 historical basis. It was found that it induced the tenants to im- 
 prove their lands, and that so far from being an injury to the 
 landlord, it was a positive gain to him. I am somewhat, however, 
 anticipating the details of what I have to say — in my wish to show 
 you the general aspects of the land question in these countries. 
 
11 
 
 I will, perhaps, best bring these details, in which, according 
 to Lord Bacon, the life and power of every question exists, before 
 you, if I consider : — 
 
 1st, The history of Ulster Tenant-right down to the Act of 
 1870. 
 
 2nd, Its position under the Act. 
 
 3rd, How it may be extended to all Ireland. 
 
 The settlement of Ulster, as you all know, took place soon 
 after the accession of James the First. At that time a large 
 portion of Ulster was desolate ; the land was forfeited to the Crown, 
 and it was determined to settle this waste land — perhaps, indeed, 
 not quite so waste as it has been represented — with Scotch and 
 English settlers. Extensive grants of land were given to a number 
 of court favourites and others, generally younger sons of noble- 
 men and gentlemen, upon the condition that they brought over 
 other settlers and dependants with them, and that to these settlers 
 they gave leases at low rents. These were the general conditions, 
 and the king reserved power to himself to resume possession of 
 these lands if the Undertakers (for so these great settlers were 
 called) failed to carry out the letter and spirit of his grants. 
 Accordingly we find that at one time the king did send com- 
 missioners to inquire into the condition of the country, and the 
 manner in which his grants had been carried out, and in another 
 celebrated case he actually forfeited the charter of the Irish 
 Society. Now, admitting that in these charters the king trusted 
 somewhat to the power of the small settlers to bargain with the great 
 Undertakers, and somewhat also to his own power of supervision, 
 and, if need be, forfeiture of the charters, nothing can be clearer 
 than his view, that the owning of land in Ulster was to be a 
 public trust — well paid for, no doubt, but still a public trust — and 
 not exclusively for any private or personal gain to the Under- 
 takers. The object which the king had in view is expressly 
 stated to be not the “ private gain” of the Undertakers, but the 
 “ advancement of the public service,” and among the articles 
 intended to carry out this advancement of the public service there 
 were two remarkable provisions— the first against rack renting, 
 and the second, that the “ Undertakers shall not demise any part 
 of their lands at ivill only, but shall make certain estates for 
 years, for life, in tail or in fee simple.” Such weie the provisions 
 
12 
 
 of the original settlement, and Professor Donnel, to whom we are all 
 very much indebted, has traced a very interesting analogy 
 between the plantation of Ulster and the Tenant-right arising 
 from it, with the land customs of the North of England. He 
 shows that at the time of the plantation of Ulster there had 
 grown up in England a tenant’s right to a renewal of his lease. 
 
 I shall only read one quotation which he gives : — “ Butler, in his 
 edition of Coke upon Littleton, says the favour which is shown to 
 old tenants by granting them a renewal of their leases, preferably 
 to a stranger, has given them, in the eye of the law, an interest 
 beyond their subsistence ; and this interest is generally termed 
 their Tenant-right of renewal. This is particularly applied to 
 leases from the Crown, from the Church, from Colleges, and from 
 other corporations.” Now, I do not wish to push any of my 
 arguments beyond what they will bear ; but I think I have shown 
 to you that the common sense of mankind has always recognised 
 certain great rights in the soil enjoyed by the occupiers, that in 
 the plantation of Ulster these rights were guarded, and especially 
 in two points — rack-renting, and capricious eviction ; and we, not 
 unnaturally, derive our Tenant-right, as it now exists, from those 
 early provisions of the settlement. 
 
 But if these facts were other than they are — and I do not 
 dwell upon them, as you will find them in the writings of Doctor 
 Macknight, of Londonderry — there would still be abundant evi- 
 dence of the long existence of Tenant-right in Ulster. During 
 the 18th century, we find, first — that all Ulster was under 
 lease ; and, second — that at the fall of the lease the land 
 was not put up to competition, but a fair rent was assessed, 
 and a new lease granted to the occupying tenant. It has never 
 been seriously disputed that during the 18th century Lister was 
 under lease. I have myself perused many hundreds of advertise- 
 ments relative to land in the old newspapers of 100 and 120 
 years ago, and nothing could be plainer or more certain than 
 this fact. To refuse a lease was considered to be almost a penal 
 act on the part of the landlord, and it is in fact so used by the 
 County Derry Grand Jury who, in 1772, passed a resolution that 
 any persons convicted of agrarian outrages would be refused a 
 lease. The exact words of the resolution are : — 
 
 “ At a General Assizes, held at Londonderry on the 15th 
 
13 
 
 day of April, 1772, for the said City and County of London- 
 derry — Resolved, 
 
 “ 2nd. That we are determined not to let a lease upon any 
 account whatsoever to any Person whom we shall have reasonable 
 cause to suspect as concerned in promoting such unwarrantable 
 Acts of violence and oppression.” 
 
 It is a little interesting, by the way, to notice how a hun- 
 dred years ago Grand Juries were merely landlord associations. 
 I wonder if, in the long period since, there has been in this 
 respect very much change or improvement. 
 
 The more important question, and, indeed, it is the key to 
 the Ulster Tenant-right and to the Land Question of all Ireland, 
 as I venture to think, is to be found in the second point — viz., 
 that at an expiration of the lease the land was not to be put up 
 to competition, but that the tenant was to get the possession at a 
 fair rent. Now, it does so happen that upon this all-important 
 point we have very full evidence, indeed, as about a hundred 
 years ago there was almost a rebellion in the North of Ireland, 
 set on foot by the “ Hearts of Steel.” The remonstrance of the 
 “ Northern Protestants,” preserved in the State Paper Office, ex- 
 plains in a few words the cause of this rebellion — “During the 
 first half of the 18th century, 1700 to 1750, the wise conduct and 
 encouragement of the nobility of Ulster had so developed the flax 
 manufacture, that the workpeople had been enabled to make 
 decent settlements and live comfortably. The arable lands were 
 all occupied and well cultivated. The inhabitants multiplied, the 
 country prospered. The landlords strived to share the people’s 
 benefits by raising their rents, which would have been reasonable 
 in a moderate degree ; but of late they had run to great excess. 
 When the tenant’s lease was expired, they published in the news- 
 papers that such a parcel of land was to be let, and that proposals 
 in writing would be received for it. They invited every 
 covetous, envious, and malicious person to offer for his neigh- 
 bour’s possessions and improvements. The tenant, knowing he 
 must be the highest bidder or turn out, he knew not whither, 
 would offer more than its value.” Nature, they add, u assigned 
 the landlord to be a father and a counsellor of his people, that he 
 might keep peace and order among them and protect them, and 
 
14 
 
 encourage industry. Though the order of tilings had made it 
 necessary that the lesser should serve under the higher, yet the 
 charter of dominion had not said that the lesser should suffer 
 by the higher.” This seems to me a very calm and temperate 
 statement of very great wrongs and grievances, and you will ob- 
 serve in it that it is not said the landlord refused to grant leases, 
 it is scarcely even complained of that he did not give the existing 
 leaseholders a preference. But the complaint is that the principle 
 of competition was called in, and the tenant was asked to pay 
 more than the land was worth. I will now read you some of the 
 advertisements which called forth this remonstrance, and excited 
 what I may call a rebellion. They are simple enough in all con- 
 science. Here is one taken from the Belfast News-letter : — 
 
 “ Out of Lease, and to be let for terms of years, a large tract 
 of land, now in the occupation of the undernamed tenants in 
 
 Island Magee, and County of Antrim Proposals 
 
 for any of the said lands may be immediately made to the Lord 
 Viscount Dungannon in Dublin, or to Edward Brice, Esq., in 
 Belfast. The proposals shall be kept secret. Any of these farms 
 under twenty acres may be treated for along with other farms, 
 as they lie convenient. — Dated 5th February, 1770.” 
 
 [Here follow 89 names.] 
 
 And here is another applying not to County Antrim, but to 
 County Armagh — 
 
 “ TO BE LET, 
 
 “ For Twenty-one years from the first day of November next, 
 the following Lands and Premises, parts of the estate of Dame 
 Lady Mary Bernard and Mrs. Frances St. John, in the Manors of 
 Baltymore and Keenan, in the County of Armagh. 
 
 [Here follow the names of 53 Tenants.] 
 
 “ N.B. — Proposals kept secret if required. 
 
 “ Tandragee, August 10 th, 1773.” 
 
 I scarcely know anything more interesting by the way than 
 turning over the advertisements and news in an old paper. The 
 doings of the great ones of the earth, their comings and their 
 goings, their parties and their quarrels, seem not merely unreal, 
 but almost ghastly, while we consider that now “ all of them are 
 mute, and most of them forgotten.” The scenes of humbler life, 
 
15 
 
 tlie births, deaths, and marriages of our great grandfathers and 
 great grandmothers, the advertisement for the runaway apprentice, 
 or the fresh arrivals of seed for a harvest gathered in one hundred 
 years ago, — these, too, affect us much, as we feel when looking 
 down from the tower or dome of a great cathedral on the streets 
 of a crowded city, where tiny men are hurrying to and fro, and 
 minute horses are dragging vans which look as if they were no 
 weight. One is reminded of the fine sentence of our countryman, 
 Edmund Burke, when told during the Bristol Election of the sud- 
 den death of one of his opponents — “ The event of yesterday 
 teaches us feelingly what shadows we are and what shadows we 
 pursue,” or of that still finer phrase of the great dramatist — “We 
 are such stuff as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded 
 with a sleep.” 
 
 There is one other quotation which, as a Northern Presby- 
 terian, I have pleasure in reading to you, and I think I may claim 
 that the Presbyterian Church has at least done for Tenant- 
 right in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, what the 
 Roman Catholic Church did for the copyhold tenures of England 
 in the thirteenth century. It is from an address of the Temple- 
 
 patrick Presbytery, forwarded by Lord * to London, with the 
 
 following passage underlined “ Now, though we, the members 
 of the Presbytery, cannot but lament the oppression that too many 
 are under from the excessive price of land, and the unfriendly 
 practices of many who contribute to the oppression by proposing 
 for their neighbour’s possessions, by which means they are too often 
 deprived of the improvements made by their forefathers and them- 
 selves, which may be the occasion of the present illegal measure,” 
 and so on. The complaint here again is not that the landlord will not 
 lease — -the right to a renewal is always admitted in practice — but 
 that he introduces the principle of competition into the rent so as 
 to confiscate the improvements. It would be easy to multiply 
 proofs as to the tenure of the North of Ireland, but I think I have 
 said enough to show you that in the last century Ulster was under 
 lease, and that at a fall of the lease the rent was not to be fixed by 
 competition. Of course if the rent was not to be fixed by com- 
 petition, so as to infringe on the tenant’s improvements, it neces- 
 sarily followed that the old tenant was continued in occupation. 
 I cannot follow out the history of the “ Hearts of Steel” here, but it 
 * The name of this nobleman is not given. 
 
16 
 
 will interest you to hear that after several years the demand for 
 competition rents was practically withdrawn and the old state of 
 matters resumed its sway, but not till vast injuries had been done 
 to Ireland, and till many of the best of Ireland’s sons were driven 
 into exile to America, to become, in a few years, the picked men 
 of Washington’s army. 
 
 At this stage of my lecture I may fairly ask you the ques- 
 tion : Suppose that you had all long leases, with right of renewal 
 at the close, at rents which would not infringe upon the improve- 
 ments you or your forefathers had made, would you be very far 
 from having all that you ask for in a settlement of this land 
 question 1 I am inclined to think that you would not. And if 
 you have followed me with patience so far, you will begin to see 
 that what we in the North have would not be very bad for you 
 to get, and that in these old advertisements and documents there 
 is a life and a force which may, perhaps, be of some use to us all. 
 I have now to show you how the Tenant-right of the 18th cen- 
 tury, which, as we have seen, was the right to a renewal of a 
 lease, became the Tenant-right of the 19th century, which we in 
 the North have defined as free sale, fair rents, and continuous 
 occupancy of tenancies at will. In other words, how it was that 
 leases ceased to be granted, and what were the changes conse- 
 quent upon this. I need scarcely say that the main element in 
 this change was the disturbance caused in all agricultural values 
 by the great wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon the First 
 As a consequence of this great disturbance in values, all the con- 
 ditions which, in ordinary times, existed under a lease, ceased, 
 to have any value, and the tenantry, who, at the close of the war, 
 found themselves with leases based on war prices, were entirely 
 at the landlord’s mercy. The landlords, too, must have found 
 much inconvenience in adjusting rents, and, no doubt, those of 
 them who had granted long leases prior to the war regarded 
 themselves as ill-used men. Political considerations also came into 
 play, and when the Act was abolished which gave leaseholders a 
 vote, it was found that the more the tenants were dependent on 
 the landlords the more likely were they to vote right. I suppose you 
 all know what voting right means. These were the leading causes 
 which led to leases being discontinued ; but the Ulster custom stood 
 even this strain, and we find the following modifications in it ; — The 
 
17 
 
 tenantry, who had previously been accustomed to sell their 
 leases, subject, of course, to a reasonable control on the part of 
 the landlord, continued to sell their tenancies at will much in the 
 same way. The revision of rents which previously could only take 
 place at the fall of the lease, were now very often made at a 
 sale of a farm. The right of a tenant to continue in his holding 
 was not very seriously disputed, but if the tenant would not “ vote 
 right” at an election, or in some other way showed too much 
 independence, it became necessary to make an example of him, 
 and he was evicted, getting indeed some compensation, in the 
 hope that he would leave the country, or, at all events, the neigh- 
 bourhood : but this compensation was generally less than he would 
 have received in the open market for his farm. When the 
 landlord did not wish to punish a tenant, but did wish to obtain 
 his farm, he either arranged to move him to some vacant farm 
 of equal or greater value, or if the tenant preferred it he gave him 
 a sum of money for his Tenant-right. After the great famine a fur- 
 ther restriction was sometimes attempted, and it was supposed to be 
 opposed to the principles of political economy to allow the 
 farmers to buy and sell their Tenant-right freely. Restrictions, 
 therefore, were put on many properties as to the price which might 
 be given, and it was said to be the office rule on many estates 
 that not more than £10 per acre should be given for a farm ; but 
 this was often evaded by the farmers giving a larger sum outside 
 of the office, and very often with the tacit consent of the office. 
 
 The folly of this restriction, which was supposed to prevent 
 the incoming tenant from impoverishing himself, will be best illus- 
 trated when it is considered that the greatest of all inducements 
 to the farmers to save is the right of free purchase and sale, and 
 that the large sums owned by the Irish farmers in the banks, &c., 
 are simply waiting for investment in the land. 
 
 I come now to the Land Act of 1870, and the Ulster Tenant- 
 right clause of it has a history, and a very curious history too. At 
 first it was Mr. Gladstone’s intention to define Ulster Tenant-right, 
 and legalize it when so defined, and he told the anecdote that 
 the various members of the Cabinet each came to one of the Cabinet 
 Councils with his definition of Tenant-right all ready, but it was 
 found that no two definitions agreed, and, even on further discus- 
 sion, it was impossible to arrive at any agreement. The Cabinet 
 
18 
 
 were thus compelled to fall back upon the plan of leaving 
 the difficulty to be determined by the Chairmen of Quarter 
 Sessions, with a right of appeal to the judges. In the bill, 
 however, as first introduced, there was an imperfect definition of 
 Ulster Tenant-right contained in the words, “ that Tenant-right 
 was the compensation to be made or allowed to an occupant of 
 an outgoing tenant of a holding.” To these words the Tenant-right 
 deputation sent to Mr. Gladstone from Ulster objected, and they 
 were at once struck out of the bill. We stated, and stated strongly, 
 that Tenant-right was not a mere claim for compensation, and the 
 j ustice of our view was admitted. We were anxious also to get a de- 
 finition of Ulster Tenant-right, because without such a definition it 
 was almost impossible to get a clause, that it should be presumed 
 that every holding in Ulster was subject to Tenant-right ; but on 
 this point we failed, and the result of our efforts has been simply 
 this : that the determination of what is the Tenant-right upon 
 each holding is left to the decision of the Chairman of Quarter 
 Sessions. It is fair to say, that upon the whole the Chairmen have 
 done their work much better than had been anticipated, and whilst 
 upon some points, and especially the legalization of leasehold Tenant- 
 right, we have been defeated, upon other points — such, for example, 
 as the incidence of estates usages — we have got more than we had 
 hoped for, although certainly not more than we were entitled to, 
 looking to the way in which the question was settled, or rather 
 compromised. 
 
 But there is undoubtedly one most important point upon which 
 we have utterly failed. Perhaps I cannot express this better than 
 by saying, that in all cases Tenant-right is treated as a claim to 
 compensation by the tenant, and not by any means as a claim for 
 continuing in occupation of the land It is held, notwithstanding 
 the striking out of the words which I have read, that the Court 
 has no power to say that the landlord shall reinstate or retain the 
 tenant in his holding, and that the tenant can only claim as com- 
 pensation for eviction the selling price of the land, or such smaller 
 price as the landlord has made the usage. In other words, the land- 
 lord can always evict a tenant when he wishes, as the tenant has no 
 claim whatever when the landlord says to him, “ You must go, but I 
 will allow you to sell your holding.” It is quite true that very few 
 landlords do evict, but it is equally true that the Land Act gives 
 
19 
 
 no security whatever against capricious eviction. A tenant who 
 offends his landlord may he turned out as readily now as before 
 the Act, with this difference indeed : that before the Act the land- 
 lord might punish him by refusing him liberty to sell, whilst now 
 he must grant this permission. But to the landlord himself, it is 
 as easy to evict as ever, for as Lord O’Neill, in a very valuable 
 and interesting letter, said, he could always get from an incoming 
 tenant as much as he had to give to the outgoing tenant. 
 
 And now you will naturally ask me what meaning we in the 
 North attach to “continuous occupancy,” and how far does it answer 
 to the ideas which in the South are attached to the words “ fixity of 
 tenure.” Almost exactly 30 years ago Dr. Hancock, who is, as you 
 know, an eminent statistician and political economist, and who, 
 moreover, has all his life been conversant with the North of Ire- 
 land and its usages, defined continuous occupancy in words which 
 are as good as any which could be now employed after all these 
 years of discussion : — “ The right of the tenant to continue 
 in possession of the farm, until for non-payment of rent or 
 some other reason the landlord has a good and sufficient cause 
 to eject him.” This, I believe, is our Ulster Tenant-right of occu- 
 pancy, and I will explain to you what are the good and sufficient 
 causes which entitled the landlord to eject ; but observe, to eject, 
 paying compensation. 1st — Non-payment of rent. The landlord 
 
 allowed the man to sell, paying himself the arrears out of the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale, and satisfying also his creditors. 2nd — Any act 
 of the tenant which seriously impaired the landlord’s security for 
 the rent. Sub-division of the land always, reckless farming, and 
 dilapidation of the buildings, when it is persisted in, are instances 
 of this kind. 3rd— The general good of the estate. The landlord 
 was enabled to take a portion of the farm to make a road, or to 
 arrange for drainage, or for some similar purpose for the common 
 benefit of the property. 4th— The tenant’s right of continuous 
 occupancy was to be exercised so as not to interfere with the fee 
 simple of the estate. The landlord’s right to seareh for minerals, 
 or to quarry, was never disputed ; or in the case of proximity to a 
 large town a tenant might refuse to go out, and thus obtain for him- 
 self, under the guise of Tenant-right, the building value of the ground. 
 To these may be added gross misconduct, such as a conviction 
 for felony ; but in these cases it was customary to give the farm 
 t 0 some relative. These are the chief classes of cases which are con- 
 
20 
 
 sidered to be within the landlord’s power and competency ; but 
 in all these cases the landlord could only evict, paying compensa- 
 tion. It does seem to me — if I might venture to digress for a 
 moment from a narrative of facts and give an advice — that our 
 claim of continuous occupancy is a fair and just one in itself ; it is 
 one which can be readily defended, and it would secure to the 
 tenantry of Ireland all that they can expect to receive. I need 
 not now stop to point out how our continuous occupancy of tenan- 
 cies at will is really equivalent to the right to a renewal of a lease, 
 but it is, I think, clear that continuous occupancy, in our sense of 
 the word, certainly is no worse for the landlord than is the system 
 of ordinary agricultural leases, whilst it really benefits the landlord 
 by giving that sense of security to the tenant which is needed to 
 induce him to make improvements. 
 
 And now I come to my third point — The extension of 
 Ulster Tenant-right to the rest of Ireland. The questions which 
 I have asked myself, and to which I shall endeavour to reply, 
 are — first, Can it be done ; and secondly, What would be the benefit 
 of doing it 1 I have put the question of the possibility of 
 legalising it first, because it does so happen that a number of 
 eminent men seem to regard the task as something wonderfully 
 difficult, if not entirely impossible. It is easy enough, they say, 
 to legalise an existing custom, but to introduce a custom where it 
 does not exist is a very different thing. It is with some diffi- 
 dence that I venture to affirm that there is a misconception 
 in this, and that it would be more correct* to affirm the para- 
 dox that it is impossible to legalise an existing custom, but 
 very easy to create a custom where it does not exist. It is im- 
 possible, I say, to legalise a custom, because a custom is in 
 itself a fluctuating thing, changing from generation to genera- 
 tion, and adapting itself to every pressure created by the wants 
 of the people. Take Ulster Tenant-right. No person would for 
 a moment venture to affirm that, had it been legalised in the last 
 century, its present condition would be, whether for good or evil, 
 what it now is. Tenant-right would have remained the right to 
 a renewal of a lease, and in case of a fall in prices, the tenant 
 would probably have little sympathy and assistance from his land- 
 lord. In other respects, of course, leases were a distinct advan- 
 
 * Of course, to legalise a custom is easy in the sense that the habits of the 
 people readily admit of it, but I am now discussing the legal difficulties. 
 
21 
 
 tage to the tenant, but what I am here discussing is not which 
 was the better system, but to point out that to legalise a 
 custom, as it is called, has two effects : it dissolves the custom 
 into its constituent parts, and stereotypes these parts. Let me read 
 for you the description which a very eminent jurist gives us of the 
 effect of legalising land customs in India. Sir Henry Mayne speaks, 
 not merely with the authority of a great lawyer, but as an eye-wit 
 ness of what he affirms : — “ In a former letter I spoke of the stiffness 
 given to native custom through the influence of English law and 
 English lawyers in the highest court of appeal. The changes which 
 I am about to describe arose from the mere establishment of local 
 courts of lowest jurisdiction, and while they have effected a 
 revolution, it is a revolution which, in the first instance, was 
 conservative of the rigidity of native usage. The customs at 
 once altered their character. They are generally collected from 
 the testimony of the village elders, but when these elders are 
 once called upon to give their evidence, they necessarily lose their 
 old position. They are no longer a half-judicial, half-legislative 
 council. That which they have affirmed to be the custom is 
 henceforward to be sought from the decisions of the courts of 
 justice, or from official documents which these courts receive as 
 evidence ; such, for example, are the documents which, under the 
 name of the Records of Right, I described to you as a detailed 
 statement of all right in land drawn up periodically by the 
 functionaries employed in settling the claim of the government 
 to its share of the rental. Usage, even recorded upon evidence 
 given, immediately becomes written and fixed law. Nor is it 
 any longer obeyed as a usage, &c.” If this be true of India, 
 where the land customs were always law, it is, I venture to think, 
 much more true of Ulster, where the customs now legalised had 
 not been capable of being enforced as law ; to this I may add that 
 we have no reason to think that judge-made law need necessarily 
 differ in the ease with which it can be legalized from statute law, 
 or that there is any magic in not defining the custom. 
 
 I am not sure that I might not derive an argument of the 
 same character from the celebrated judgment of Lord Justice 
 Christian on the effect of a sale in the Landed Estates Court upon 
 Tenant-right. That eminent judge laid it down that the freewill 
 of the landlord was part of the custom, and that in legalising the 
 custom the Legislature must legalise the free will of the landlord. 
 
22 
 
 The partial resemblance between this argument and that of Sir 
 Henry Mayne is curious, and it may fairly be said that Lord Justice 
 Christian saw one side of the truth. But admittedly on all sides 
 the free will of the landlord has not been legalised, and the band 
 which held the elements of the custom together having been dis- 
 solved by the Act of 1870, it seems quite clear that, even in Ulster, 
 the Legislature has legalised not so much the custom as these ele- 
 ments. If this be so, the difference between the North and South is 
 only this : that it was possible in the North to legalise the custom 
 without defining it, but it is not possible to do so in the South. 
 In the North the Legislature took the easy plan of throwing the 
 duty upon the judges. In the South it must do the work itself. 
 
 It is assumed in this statement that the circumstances of the 
 North and the South are in many respects similar. Now, with- 
 out going back upon what I have said as to the origin of all pro- 
 perty rights, and the prevalence almost everywhere of some 
 rights in the occupiers, I may say that perhaps the strongest 
 portion of our claim is this : that the tenantry, both North 
 and South, have built the houses, and made the drains and 
 fences, and have done for the land all that has been done. 
 Nay, more, they have made these improvements at their own 
 risk If these were unsuitable, or a mistake, the farmers 
 lost their own outlay and had no claim either direct or indi- 
 rect upon the landlord. Still further, I may say, that in the nature 
 of things the tenantry of Ireland must make the improvements. 
 It is impossible that landlords can make all the improvements upon 
 a number of small holdings, but small holdings pay a better rent 
 than large holdings. We are thus in Ireland, I believe, in this 
 dilemma, that a Tenant-right, or restriction upon rack renting and 
 arbitrary eviction, would in the South increase the rental as it has 
 done in the North. It is a confirmation of this opinion that in 
 Scotland and England an agitation is springing up for compensa- 
 tion for improvements at the close of a lease. It is felt by the 
 tenants that, in addition to the security of a lease, something more 
 is required ; and that the system, by which, as some one said, for 
 ten years, the farmers are putting their capital into the land, and 
 for the remainder of their leases are taking their money out of the 
 land, is not satisfactory. Now leases with compensation are not 
 very unlike our Tenant-right, and if this demand be reasonable, as 
 I think it is when you have great farmers and a class of capitalist 
 
23 
 
 farmers, the full Tenant-right is, I believe, indispensable when you 
 have small farms with the improvements made by the labour of 
 the occupiers. To induce these improvements should be one of 
 the main objects of legislation, and, speaking from the experience 
 of the North, I believe that improvements will not be made where 
 the tenants have not the right of free sale. There is another element 
 similar in the North and South — the improvements were made 
 and the rent paid on the understanding, not that the tenant was to 
 be recouped by a cheap rent for his expenditure, but that he was 
 to continue to enjoy the fruits of his industry and skill.* 
 
 I must hasten now, however, to a conclusion, and I have to 
 say a word or two on the desirability of creating an Ulster Tenant- 
 right in the South. There are many reasons for this. It is, in 
 the first place, desirable that, as far as possible, legislation for 
 both North and South should be uniform ; and if I am of any 
 value as a witness to a fact, I can testify to this, that the North 
 is unanimously anxious that there should be full justice done to 
 the South in this matter. I think there is another advantage in 
 the Ulster custom. It is based on a long experience, and where 
 it has been carried out faithfully, as it has been on many pro- 
 perties, it has furnished a protection to the tenant, and a 
 matter of pride and of congratulation, to the landlord. Men like 
 the late Marquis of Downshire were proud to hear that their 
 tenantry gave very high prices for land, trusting solely to the 
 fidelity of the landlord to the traditions of his property, If you had 
 Ulster Tenant-right fully and fairly extended to you in the South, 
 the tenantry would have ample security, but still not more than what 
 is right and necessary, for their improvements. The landlords 
 would reap from the improvements from time to time, as they are 
 entitled to, a fair and reasonable increase of rent, while the general 
 public — for it, too, has an interest in the question — would know 
 
 * The practical effect of the Land Bill has been that in very large districts 
 in the South, improvements by the tenantry are at a stand still. I ventured 
 to propose, before the introduction of the Bill, and afterwards during its pro- 
 gress, that instead of making compensation, under clause 3, for disturbance de- 
 pend entirely upon the decision of the Assistant Barrister, who might award 
 much or little, there should always be a fixed element in the claims for 
 disturbance, viz., a bonus upon improvements. In other words, that the tenant 
 should get — first, his improvements ; second, an addition of say one-half to 
 these improvements ; and third, such further sums, but upon a lower rate 
 than in clause 3, as the judges might consider right for the hardship of dis- 
 turbance. 
 
24 
 
 that the size of farms and the occupation of land were regulated 
 upon those principles of competition and free sale which furnish 
 the best security for the due cultivation of the soil. If I were 
 asked to state in the language of political economy what Tenant- 
 right is, I would define it as free trade in the occupation of land. 
 
 I have placed on my notes two other topics upon which to say 
 a word, but I cannot do more than mention them. In the North 
 we attach great value to Mr Bright's clauses, but there are practical 
 difficulties in the way of working these clauses. The chief difficulty 
 lies, I think, in this, that some of the tenantry are themselves 
 unwilling to join the others in the purchase. I believe that there 
 will need to he some well-considered legislation by which what I 
 may call “ land banks” will be created, standing between the go- 
 vernment and the tenantry, guaranteeing the government against the 
 risk and trouble of itself managing large properties, and getting 
 loans at low rates from the government on condition that they grant 
 perpetuities to the tenants on reasonable terms. Such a scheme 
 might, I think, be worked out to the advantage of all concerned. 
 There is another question upon which we think much good might 
 be done, and this is Grand Jury Reform. We believe the occupiers 
 of land have now practically no share in the disposal of the local 
 taxation, and we believe they ought to have a share. We do not 
 wish to exclude the owners of land from their legitimate influence in 
 this matter. We should be sony to know that their education, their 
 character, and their position, should not have its weight in 
 local government, but we think that there are also other interests 
 to be consulted, and other men who should represent these in- 
 terests at the fiscal business of the various Irish counties. 
 
 In one of the most amusing sketches that he ever wrote, 
 Thackeray drew a vivid picture of a young and struggling 
 barrister of good family giving a dinner, half in fun, to a rich old 
 East India director. The chops (he could only afford chops) were 
 cooked in the parlour, and the potatoes were hot from the kitchen 
 fire, the porter and the pipes and tobacco were supposed to be 
 brought from the nearest public-house by his little daughter 
 Polly, and after dinner a single bottle of port was produced. As 
 the two gentlemen sat sipping their wine, the young man 
 suddenly asked, “ Now tell me, have you not had a good dinner ?” 
 and, after a gasp of surprise, the old gourmand had to confess 
 
that the dinner was good. Everything had been properly cooked 
 and served, and everything was appropriate. I would like to 
 know that some of the landlords of the county — some of its many 
 good landlords — were here till I would ask them in my turn — 
 “ What injury would you receive by adopting these provisions of 
 the Ulster Tenant-right 1 Your rent-roll, all that you can 
 legitimately claim as your own, is untouched, for rents are higher, 
 and the letting value of lands greater, in Ulster than in any other 
 province ; your legitimate control over your estates is uninterfered 
 with ; you have, further, the satisfaction of knowing that those 
 with whom you have been so long connected are placed beyond 
 the accidents of fortune, a spendthrift heir, or a hard and griping 
 purchaser. Is there anything so dreadful in all this ? If there 
 be, I confess I cannot see it. Of one thing I am certain, that 
 changes in this direction are inevitable, and I earnestly hope 
 that in making these changes we may so be able to state our 
 claims and rights as to carry with us the co-operation and assent 
 of all classes of the community. Permit me, in conclusion, to 
 add one word of caution. If you had Tenant-right to-morrow 
 you would simply have the opportunity of improving your land, 
 but your future would still depend entirely upon yourselves. As 
 an old proverb has it, there is a great deal of human nature about 
 men, and give men a real property, I am certain they will use it 
 to the best and utmost. I drove down this morning to see your 
 beautiful bay, and I found it studded with boats, pursuing a toil- 
 some, and, I suppose, an uncertain industry ; but there could be 
 no mistake as to the earnestness of the fishers. I believe that, 
 what is true of the sea would be still more true of the land, and that, 
 with continued occupancy, fair rents, and free sale, a new 
 spirit would be breathed into the South, so that, with your 
 superior soil and climate, you would soon outstrip us in the 
 North. That there may be a friendly co-operation to secure your 
 rights and our rights, and a friendly rivalry between us when 
 those rights are secured, is the wish, I am sure, of every one here 
 to-day, and of every one who wishes well to his country. 
 
 It was not possible, in the limits of a lecture, to dwell upon the 
 question of how to fully legalise Ulster Tenant-right, and prevent 
 
2G 
 
 capricious eviction. I may, perhaps, be allowed, in a word, to 
 say that two modes have been suggested : — 
 
 1st. — That the Land Courts should have the absolute power 
 of preventing evictions where they seemed to be in violation of the 
 custom. This power might be exercised either at the discretion 
 of the Chairman, or subject to a definition by Act of Parliament 
 of what constituted a violation of the custom ; or 
 
 2nd. — The Chairman, in case of capricious evictions, might be 
 entitled not to prevent the evictions on the part of the landlord, 
 but to award the tenant his Tenant-right, together with a further 
 sum for disturbance. This sum for disturbance might be either 
 on a scale similar to clause 3 of the Land Bill, or it might be a 
 fixed proportion of the Tenant-right.* 
 
 1 may add that there are many practical shortcomings in the 
 Bill, upon the questions of fair rents and free sales, but the wis- 
 dom of the Legislature will, no doubt, gradually find a remedy for 
 these also. 
 
 * A difficulty, very similar to that which exists in Ulster, arose in Hun- 
 gary, and a few years ago it was settled by legislation, which gave to the 
 tenant all his buildings, &c., and about fifteen acres of land, in perpetuity, at 
 a fixed moderate rent, whilst for the rest of the land he was left to make the 
 best bargain he could with his landlord. 
 
Letter of Lord Waveney. 
 
 > + < 
 
 In the Times of the 30th ult., in the column headed “ Tenant- 
 right, 1 ” a correspondent, “ R. Temple,’’ while contributing some 
 valuable remarks on the general subject, expresses himself on 
 Irish Tenant-right with an inaccuracy natural to those who have 
 no personal experience of the state of society whereout the Irish 
 Tenant-right sprang, and wherein it is maintained. I have never 
 seen this briefly detailed, and, therefore, with your permission, 
 and under the distasteful position of being obliged to speak of the 
 obligations I have inherited, I will endeavour to make clear the 
 merits of the legislation which, in opposition to Mr. R. Temple, 
 I designate, of my own knowledge and experience, just in 
 principle and beneficent in result. Moreover, it was, in truth, no 
 otherwise a sacrifice of “ economy to politics” than was Roman 
 Catholic emancipation a sacrifice of religion to politics. Each 
 measure was an embodiment of just ideas. And now, sir, to pro- 
 ceed to exposition and proof. In the course of the colonisation 
 of North-Eastern Ireland from Scotland, my family returned at 
 the beginning of the seventeenth century as settlers, by purchase, 
 in the County of Antrim. These immigrations were composed of 
 the neighbours and tenants, in many cases, of the leader. Yet 
 the enterprise was partly colonisation, partly military settlement. 
 The market charter granted to my ancestor, in 1625, states as a 
 condition that the grantee “ should reduce the natives to 
 civility ” — in civilitatem redigere. To the westward and northward 
 of the young settlement lay Tyrone and O’Neill, and the native 
 Irish septs, on a frontier exposed to continual incursions. The 
 tenants who accompanied the immigration did feudal service, 
 and received allocations of sound ground amid the mosses and 
 bogs. Hence a military tenure, of man service, which has con- 
 tinued expressed in leases for 120 or even 240 years, some of which 
 are not yet exhausted, Besides this purely military tenure, a civil 
 
28 
 
 tenure of no less evident equity sprang up. The Westland 
 Whigs — men on whose tombstones the restoring chisel of “ Old 
 Mortality” was exercised, as I have myself seen— furnished their 
 contingent of emigrants who fled from the Prelatic prosecutions 
 in Galloway across the Channel to their blood relations and 
 friends,* settled in Antrim. 
 
 But neither in the case of military settlement nor of civil 
 colonisation did a tenant acquire more than the bare soil. No 
 buildings were erected for him by the lord, no timber or stone 
 supplied as part of the contract. He was left to wage war against 
 the hard nature of our Northern climate as best he might, and 
 nobly the contest was brought to a triumphant issue. 
 
 As time went on, and changes of tenancy came about, with 
 the assent of the lord always, natural equity enjoined and custom 
 affirmed that the tenant’s personal outlay should be held to be his 
 property, and be represented by a value apart from that incident 
 to the land. This principle is adopted practically into the Land 
 Code of Ireland in the “Tenement Valuation,” wherein two 
 separate columns record the value of buildings as distinguished 
 from land. 
 
 This is the origin, in its simplest form, of Tenant-right as 
 accepted in my family for 300 years, and with lasting benefit to 
 landlord and tenant. The force of equity will be evident from the 
 reflection that this Tenant-right represents the essential element in 
 the continued security which the tenant’s military service gave to 
 the lord for the enjoyment of the land which his labours had 
 recovered from waste and bog. 
 
 In fact, this description of Tenant-right corresponds to the 
 knights’ fees of the companions of the Conqueror’s. In its simplest 
 form, it obtained principally in Antrim and Armagh, but was 
 modified, yet always with reference to an inherent equitable 
 interest, in the plantation counties, such as Derry, and in the 
 debenture counties of Cavan and Fermanagh. Of the prac- 
 tice of Tyrone the same may be affirmed, and probably of the 
 County of Donegal. Down possesses like claims, and it was 
 from Down that the most persistent advocate of Tenant-right, my 
 valued friend, the late Sharman Crawford, vindicated the tenant’s 
 right. But I am inclined to think that in Down the right is 
 derived through Norman settlers, as some of the tenants in that 
 
29 
 
 county are proprietors to the amount of .£2,000 per annum. Such 
 is the origin of the Tenant-right of Ulster, illustrated in the 
 history of a single family ; and I ask with what justice could I 
 refuse to acknowledge such claims when put forth by the direct 
 descendants or the le^al representatives of men who laboured as 
 companions of those from whom I derive 'l Now as to the results 
 of this system on the improvement of the land, and therefore on 
 national wealth. 
 
 I spoke of leases of 240 years granted to a single lessee, which 
 have fallen out within my knowledge. The original grants have 
 been sublet by the immediate lessee, himself often a tenant-farmer, 
 and the rent payable to him was therefore of such amount as the 
 market would give. Now at one end of the scale we find the 
 original rent, and at the other the aggregate rent paid at the pre- 
 sent day ; and, taking the value of money at the former period 
 into account, the increased value during the currency of that lease 
 may be estimated at 1,100 per cent. 
 
 It is not wonderful, nor, pace your correspondent, reprehen- 
 sible, that tenants should cling to the soil where such astonishing 
 efforts of labour had been expended, and the final impulse to 
 agitation was given by the increase of rents on properties sold 
 under the Landed Estates Court. Purchasers expected 5 per cent, 
 on their capital, in the shape of rent, in place of from 3 to 4. 
 The selling value to the tenant was reduced in that proportion, 
 and, as the properties were sold without reservation of existing 
 customs, there was no remedy for the tenant except such as might 
 be found in the prudence or kindly feeling of the purchaser. 
 
 Such is the Tenant-right of Ulster, under which industry, 
 being secure of its rewards, has made the province second to none 
 in wealth and peace. But where this condition of things has not 
 been equally susceptible of identification or has existed in a very 
 depressed form, the general right to compensation for outlay and 
 for disturbance has been justly incorprated with the Land Act. 
 
 This compensation for disturbance, be it observed, is of the 
 highest moment in a country where, except from agriculture and 
 its dependent industries, but little opportunity of gaining a live- 
 lihood at present exists. But, doubtless, a somewhat analogous 
 condition of tenure will be found among the descendants of the 
 military settlers of Elizabeth in Munster, in the King’s and 
 
30 
 
 Queen’s Counties, among the Palatinates, and among the Deben- 
 turers of Cromwell in Cavan and Fermanagh. 
 
 How little comparison can be established between the 
 Tenant-rights of England and Ireland is evident from the fact 
 that if, as I contend, the latter is the equivalent of the “ knight’s 
 fee” in England, that condition of tenure began to disappear after 
 the battle of Evesham, which involved barons and retainers in 
 general defeat. Then may be noted the first springing up of a 
 class of tenants whose relations to the lord were rather financial 
 than feudal. Now, in respect of the gradual extension of the 
 equity of Tenant-right to cases where the form has not previously 
 existed, a very noticeable progress in reasoning, akin to that 
 which illustrated the first decisions on copyhold law, may be re- 
 marked. In the decisions given in the land courts by the as- 
 sistant barristers, generally marked with firmness and equitable 
 construction, the very same course of expression and of illustra- 
 tion is employed as will be found in “ Blackstone” in tracing 
 the progress of equity as applied to tenants’ plaints in matters of 
 copyhold ; and I take leave further to bear my willing testimony 
 to the upright and enlightened spirit in which the assistant 
 barristers have administered the provisions of the Land Act. 
 
 And now, sir, having, by your courtesy, proceeded to so great 
 a length, I will add little more on the remarks of your correspon- 
 dent but these few lines derived naturally from the larger subject. 
 I agree with him that over-legislation is much to be deprecated. 
 Minute points of business cannot be determined by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, but some standard by which a tenant’s claims should be 
 measured is essential. For the English tenant-farmer has not yet 
 attained to the purely business habits of calculation which prevail 
 in Scotland ; and even in that country the law of hypothec is 
 disturbing. The English tenant occupies a mid-place between the 
 Scotch tenant, with his proneness to remove so soon as a favourable 
 bargain presents itself, and the Irish tenant, with his deep and 
 natural devotion to the soil ; and I hold that in both England and 
 Ireland a reasonable expectation of continuing tenancy is, in dif- 
 ferent degrees, not to be discouraged. Many causes must combine 
 for this end, but in England the one most powerful and most applic- 
 able is the lease. Now, on an estate in this country [England], 
 where leases have been but rarely given, I have adopted the general 
 
31 
 
 principle of the lease introduced by the Earl of Leicester. T en- 
 close the form of the three principal clauses, and believe that I see 
 in those provisions a means of securing a perpetuation of tenancy 
 in the case of desirable tenants. I must add that the idea of a 
 lease is not yet as thoroughly acceptable as it will become when 
 the general conditions of the labour market are more clearly de- 
 veloped and understood. At present some think a lease binds the 
 tenant, and leaves the landlord free. However, one-fourth of my 
 tenants have already accepted a lease, and before long a lease will 
 be considered the certificate of good and reputable farming which 
 it should convey, for when a landlord grants a lease, it behoves 
 him to consider well to whom. 
 
 “I. The tenancy is to be (12 or 16) years, commencing on 
 the 11th day of October, one thousand eight hundred and , 
 
 but to be terminable at the end of eight or twelve years at the 
 request of the tenant, with the consent of the landlord ; with the 
 intention that the landlord shall then, if he think fit, grant 
 a new lease from the end of the eighth or twelfth year, at the old 
 rent, for the first years of the new term, and for the remainder 
 of the term at the rent that may then be agreed upon. 
 
 “ V. The tenant is to cultivate and manage the farm during 
 the first years of the term according to his own judgment, 
 and to have full power during such time to dispose of all or any 
 portion of the produce of the farm by sale or otherwise. 
 
 “VI. During the last four years the tenant shall bring the 
 arable lands into the four-course system of husbandry practised 
 in Suffolk, so that in the last year of the term there shall be, 
 as nearly as the sizes of the fields will admit, as follows : — 
 That is to say, one-fourth part thereof in clean summer- 
 tilth, or with turnips or other vegetable cattle crop ; another fourth 
 part thereof with barley or oats ; one moiety of one other fourth 
 part thereof with clover or other artificial grass, and the other 
 moiety of the same one-fourth part with peas or beans, and the 
 remaining one-fourth part thereof with wheat ; and he is not to 
 suffer any hemp, flax, mustard, coleseed, nor any clover, trefoil, or 
 other artificial grass to stand or grow for a crop of seed in the 
 last four years of the term, nor mow more than one-half of the 
 grass lands in any one year, nor any grass lands two years in suc- 
 cession during the last four years of the term.” 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 3 8 6 R 7 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 0 
 
 >020997